Year 12 Biology

IA3 Research Investigation

Hayley Westman

Due Date: 19/07/24

Teacher: Miss TAYLOR

Table of Contents
Claim:.....................................................................................................................................................3
Rationale...............................................................................................................................................3
Research Question:................................................................................................................................4
Analysis + interpretation:.......................................................................................................................4
Evidence 1:............................................................................................................................................4
Evidence 2:............................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion and Evaluation.....................................................................................................................7
Quality of evidence............................................................................................................................7
Conclusion to claim and research question.......................................................................................7
Evaluation..........................................................................................................................................7
Reference:.............................................................................................................................................9
Claim: DNA profiling enables accurate identification of individuals.

Rationale
Throughout this investigation the claim “DNA profiling enables accurate identification of individuals”
will be explored however due to the broadness of the claim, the research has been narrowed down
to focus on the validity of the method of DNA profiling in forensic investigation. Due to the sufficient
sources discovered after extended research, the validity of DNA profiling will be examined regarding
the effects of contamination in this field.

DNA profiling is the process of obtaining a person's unique DNA sequence pattern, also known as a
profile, and using it to identify individuals from a sample of DNA (Norrgard, 2008). It is due to all
human's DNA sequences varying the processes of DNA profiling is made possible, creating a
theoretically extremely accurate and revolutionary process of identification of individuals
(Panneerchelvam and Norazmi, 2003). Despite this however, as a result of the possibility for error
particularly in the way of contamination the validity of this method of investigation is questioned
especially in the field of forensic science. (Pickrahn et al., 2015)

Forensic science is the use of scientific methods to investigate crimes and examine evidence
(richard.press,nist.gov, 2013). Forensic science is knowingly associated with DNA profiling likely from
its reputation within the criminal justice system and its representation in film and television. In
forensic science DNA profiling is defined as “the comparison of genetic information of a person
(suspect) to evidence found at the scene of offence or crime.” (Nizami et al. 2018) Forensic scientists
compare DNA profiles of biological evidence samples found at crime scenes data banks such as the
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) to examine and provide evidence that may be used in court or
assist in detecting suspects (Norrgard, 2008). Methods such as nuclear DNA analysis, mitochondrial
DNA analysis, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and fingerprint analysis are frequently relied upon in
forensic DNA profiling and analysis (National Institute of Justice, 2012).

The validity of the method of investigation measures the accuracy of the means by which one is
pursuing the investigation. This is different to reliability which focuses on the consistency of the
method instead. (Price, 2018) In forensic science when evaluating the validity of the method of
investigation of DNA profiling questions arise as a result of the high risk of contamination present
(Forensic Access, 2022).

Contamination of DNA profiling in forensic science is the addition of undesirable foreign DNA in a
crime scene rendering the results unfit for use as the profile is no longer accurate. This occurs when
foreign DNA mixes and pollutes the intended sample which could transpire before during or after
collection, transport to lab or at the lab. (Forensic Science Regulator, 2023)

To ensure specificity in this research investigation the key concepts and variables of ‘DNA profiling,’
‘forensic science,’ ‘valid method of investigation,’ and ‘contamination’ have been considered to
develop a specific and relevant research question for this investigation. Ultimately producing, “To
what extent is DNA profiling a valid method of investigation of individuals when considering the
effects of contamination in forensic science?” to be derived from the claim.

Research Question:
To what extent is DNA profiling a valid method of investigation of individuals when considering the
effects of contamination in forensic science?

Analysis + interpretation:
The analysis of two studies will occur in this research investigation along with a compilation of the
most relevant and appropriate supporting sources to thoroughly and definitively investigate the
research question. The following studies were determined to be the most relevant:

1. Pickrahn et al. (2015) published in the Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement
Series 5 aimed to investigate the contamination rate of biological traces worldwide by
comparing the number of analysed crime scene samples with the number of detected
contamination incidents in laboratories.
2. Szkuta et al. (2013) published in the Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement
Series 5 aimed to research the level of contamination by focusing on the occurrence of DNA
transfer between high-risk vectors during the examination process.

Evidence 1:
The study titled “Contamination when collecting trace evidence—An issue more relevant than ever?”
compared the number of analysed crime scene samples with the number of detected contamination
incidents in their forensic laboratories, examining the contamination rate as well as the ability to
detect contamination over a 14-year period. This was done by screening the generated DNA profiles
for contamination manually and using reference profiles of crime scene investigators and laboratory
staff to detect contamination. (Pickrahn et al. 2015)

Figure 1 illustrates the detected contamination incidents from 2000-2014 both before and after the
implementation of the ‘Police Elimination Database’ (PED) and the ‘profile comparison’ tool. As
highlighted in Figure 1 the number of detected contaminations from 2000-2007 significantly
increased over the years which was then followed by a small decrease in 2008 and 2009. This
declining trend however was not observed to continue as a significant spike in detection numbers
after the implementation of the PED (2010-2012) can be seen and again increasing contamination
detection numbers after the implementation of the profile comparison tool in conjunction with PED
(2013-2014). Whilst the obvious trend shown by the sheer number of contaminations detected
alludes to the conclusion that DNA profiling cannot be considered a valid method of investigation
since there is still contamination occurring despite the many advancements in forensic science
technology since 2000. However, whilst this data shows contamination is still occurring, now due to
PED and profile comparison tools these contaminations are detected more and quicker than before
thus improving the overall validity of DNA profiling as it provides the ability to identify errors in the
DNA profile before the contaminated DNA evidence is utilised in a court of law as valuable evidence
possibly misleading the investigation or resulting in a wrongful conviction. (Pickrahn et al. 2015)
Thus, it is important to note that the apparent rise in contamination rate over the years is likely
explained not by an actual increase in contamination events but rather by improved measures taken
to detect it hence resulting in a greater number of detections.

Despite the usefulness of this piece of evidence, limitations arose regarding the date of publication
as well as the sample size. The date of publication being 2015, almost 10 years ago, affects the
validity of this source as it is more feasible to argue the data is outdated and possibly lacking
pertinent information regarding developments over the past 10 years especially in a field such as
forensic science and biology where developments are constant (Huston and Choi, 2017). Due to the
data solely being acquired from Austrian laboratories “mainly from the federal states of Salzburg and
Upper Austria,” (Pickrahn et al. 2015) other countries were not considered hence hindering the
ability to draw valid generalised conclusions from this data (Institute for Work and Health, 2008).

Regardless, the observed trends highlighted in Figure 1 present evidence to both support the claim
and refute it. By detailing the increase in effectiveness of detection of contamination because of
recent advancements such as the PED and profiling comparison tools DNA profiling can be
considered a valid method of investigation of individuals when considering the effects of
contamination in forensic science. However, when considering the fact there still is so many cases of
contamination within laboratories even with recent developments it can be concluded DNA is only a
somewhat valid method of investigation of individuals when considering the effects of
contamination.

Figure 1 Pickrahn et al. (2015)

Evidence 2:
The study, “The potential transfer of trace DNA via high-risk vectors during exhibit examination”
published in 2013 aimed to investigate the level of contamination in heavy and light
contamination/contact scenarios by focusing on the occurrence of DNA transfer between high-risk
vectors during the examination process. This was achieved by forensic scientists examining a mock
crime scene in which control samples had been taken to determine the presence of extraneous DNA
in the collected samples.

Figure 2 demonstrates the average percentage of alleles transferred by each vector in both light and
heavy contamination/contact scenarios. DNA transfer is observed in both conditions from all vectors
however the light contamination condition, notably less percentage of alleles was detected. The
prominent difference between light and heavy contamination scenarios is portrayed and reveals the
significant effect of increased contamination and contact on the number of alleles transferred.
However, Figure 2 also illustrates the high contamination risk for each vector. Scissors in particular is
a key example of this which can be seen to pose a higher contamination risk (almost 100% of alleles
were transferred in the heavy condition) compared to that of forceps (less than 20% in the same
condition).

Despite the overall usefulness of this source the limitations date of publication and number of trials
arose. The date of publication being 11 years ago limits the accuracy of the source due to the
possibility of it being considered out data and lack of consideration of recent developments (Huston
and Choi, 2017). Similarly, due to the experiment only occurring once, there were not multiple trials
to compare results between, thus decreasing the validity of the results as systematic error may have
had a greater effect and variability may have increased, consequently decreasing the ability to
develop reasonable conclusions (James et al., 2007).

Nonetheless, the prominent trends observed in Figure 2 present undisputable evidence of the
significant impact of contamination in forensic science hence undeniably refuting the claim. Due to
the presence of contamination shown by the high percentage transfer of alleles in all conditions,
regardless of contamination/contact scenarios or different types of vectors, the overwhelming
presence of contamination highlights the extent DNA profiling can be considered a valid method of
investigation of individuals when considering the effects of contamination in forensic science is very
limited.

Figure 2 Szkuta et al. (2013)

Conclusion and Evaluation
Quality of evidence
In combination with the two primary sources of evidence (Figure 1 and Figure2) a variety of other
sources including systematic reviews and admirable peer-reviewed studies were utilised to effectively
determine to what extent DNA profiling is considered a valid method of investigation of individuals in
forensic science specifically when considering the effects of contamination. The reliability and validity
were key determining factors when selecting sources and were thoroughly considered throughout
the course of the investigation along with relevance and availability. Suitable evidence that
contributed sufficiently to the investigation that also fulfilled these requirements were difficult to
acquire due to the desired quality of the sources and the specificity of the research question.
Nonetheless, a collection of valuable, credible sources was achieved. Regardless limitations still
arose. In the first source (Figure 1), the limitations of the date of publication being almost 10 years
ago hence its data may be outdated (Huston and Choi, 2017) as well as limited sample size which
affects the ability to draw a generalised conclusion were the primary limitations encountered with
this source (Institute for Work and Health, 2008). In the second source (Figure 2), the limitations of
the date of publication (11 years ago) due to possibly being considered outdated presented the issue
of limiting the accuracy of the source (Huston and Choi, 2017) in combination with the limited
number of trails conducted (1) the validity of the source may be questioned. Nevertheless, the
sources used throughout this experiment were of an overall high standard significantly aided in
answering the research question.

paywall

Conclusion to claim and research question

This investigation aimed to answer the following research question, “To what extent is DNA profiling
a valid method of investigation of individuals when considering the effects of contamination in
forensic science?” The evidence from Pickrahn et al. (2015) determined while due to advanced
technology increases contamination detection thus increasing the accuracy of the method of
investigation overall the occurrence of contamination still being present regardless leads to the
conclusion DNA profiling is only a somewhat valid method of investigation of individuals when
considering the effects of contamination. Additionally, Szkuta et al. (2013) highlighted the limited
extent DNA profiling can be considered a valid method of investigation of individuals when
considering the effects of contamination in forensic science due to the high percentage of alleles
transferred regardless of the conditions within this experiment. The significance and clear trends
within the evidence corroborated with an array of literature and supporting sources suggest, that the
extent DNA profiling can be considered to be an accurate method of investigation of individuals in
limited. This conclusion produced from the evidence analysed throughout the investigation refutes
the original claim.

Evaluation
To combat the range of limitations encountered many opportunities for improvements and
extensions arose over the course of this investigation. Newer sources with increased sample size and
extended understanding are recommended improvements for this report. Additional research
including investigating conviction and wrongful conviction rates from DNA profiling, use and accuracy
of DNA profiling in different countries and reliability and accuracy of DNA profiling are suggested
extensions. Furthermore, increasing specificity by investigating specific types of DNA profiling
(mitochondrial, nuclear, fingerprints, etc.) and comparing the accuracy of each type or investigating
validity of the method of each different type are further possible extensions recommended. Despite
these extensions and improvements, consideration of other studies as well as alternate
methodologies is also required to effectively and definitively answer the research question.
Reference:

Access, F. (2022). The Risk of Contamination in Forensic DNA Profiling. [online] Forensic
Access. Available at: https://www.forensic-access.co.uk/news/insight/the-risk-of-
contamination-in-forensic-dna-profiling/.

Forensic Science Regulator (2023). Guidance: Contamination controls -Scene of crime Issue
1. [online] Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65362ef6e839fd000d867325/FSR-GUI-
0016_DNA_contamination_controls_-_incident_scenes.pdf.

Huston, P. and Choi, B. (2017). A guide to publishing scientific research in the health
sciences. Canada Communicable Disease Report, 43(9), pp.169–175.
doi:https://doi.org/10.14745/ccdr.v43i09a01.

Institute for Work and Health (2008). Sample size and power. [online] www.iwh.on.ca.
Available at: https://www.iwh.on.ca/what-researchers-mean-by/sample-size-and-
power#:~:text=Sample%20size%20refers%20to%20the.

James, C.R., Herman, J.A., Dufek, J.S. and Bates, B.T. (2007). Number of Trials Necessary
to Achieve Performance Stability of Selected Ground Reaction Force Variables During
Landing. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, [online] 6(1), pp.126–134. Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3778688/.

National Institute of Justice (2012). DNA Evidence: Basics of Identifying, Gathering and
Transporting. [online] National Institute of Justice. Available at:
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/dna-evidence-basics-identifying-gathering-and-transporting.

Nizami, S.B., Hassan Kazmi, S.Z., Abid, F., Babar, M.M., Noor, A., Zaidi, N.-S.S., Khan,
S.U., Hasan, H., Ali, M. and Gul, A. (2018). Chapter 6 - Omics Approaches in Forensic
Biotechnology: Looking for Ancestry to Offence. [online] ScienceDirect. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128046593000063.

Norrgard, K. (2008). Forensics, DNA Fingerprinting, and CODIS. [online] Nature.com.

Available at: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/forensics-dna-fingerprinting-and-
codis-736/.
Panneerchelvam, S. and Norazmi, M.N. (2003). Forensic DNA profiling and database. The
Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS, [online] 10(2), pp.20–6. Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3561883/#:~:text=The%20advent%20of
%20DNA%20fingerprinting.

Pickrahn, I., Kreindl, G., Müller, E., Dunkelmann, B., Zahrer, W., Cemper-Kiesslich, J. and
Neuhuber, F. (2015). Contamination when collecting trace evidence—An issue more relevant
than ever? Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, [online] 5, pp.e603–
e604. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2015.09.238.

Price, P.C. (2018). Reliability and Validity of Measurement – Research Methods in

Psychology. [online] Opentextbc.ca. Available at:
https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter/reliability-and-validity-of-measurement/.

[email protected] (2013). Forensic Science. [online] NIST. Available at:

https://www.nist.gov/forensic-science#:~:text=Forensic%20science%20is%20the%20use.

Szkuta, B., Harvey, M.L., Ballantyne, K.N. and van Oorschot, R.A.H. (2013). The potential
transfer of trace DNA via high risk vectors during exhibit examination. Forensic Science
International: Genetics Supplement Series, [online] 4(1), pp.e55–e56.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2013.10.028.